Abstract
This article examines how the major political parties in the United States select candidates for elective office, in particular through primary elections. The author reviews various mechanisms of candidate selection, explains the importance of the sequencing, and discusses the pros and cons of primaries, including media coverage, fundraising, party strengthening and candidate preparation. Finally, the article looks at the relevance and potential for US-style primaries for European-level parties in the European Union as a means to increase public engagement in and awareness of future European Parliament elections.
Introduction
Primary elections are now the most common way for political parties in the United States to select candidates for elected office. Although the presidential primaries are well known to Europeans, both the Republicans and Democrats also use primaries to select candidates for a wide range of federal, state and local posts. Historically, many state party organisations have favoured internal processes, such as caucuses or conventions. Over recent decades, however, the trend for both major parties has been towards a more open nominating process and thus towards primaries.
The 2014 European Parliament elections are on the horizon, and the new Lisbon Treaty provisions for selecting the European Commission president are now in force, so the role of the European political parties has increased. The 2014 elections offer an opportunity for European parties to build a stronger identity among the voters and present a candidate for the presidency. But how should the campaign be structured and a candidate for the European Commission presidency be selected? Having no historical precedent to draw on, can US-style primaries offer a possible model?
This article examines the positive and negative aspects of primaries as a means to select candidates in the US and how they might offer a path to European parties as they prepare for European elections in 2014.
Methods of candidate selection
Although primary elections have become the most widespread method of candidate selection, many states continue to use caucuses to choose party nominees.
A caucus is a private event organised and paid for by a political party. By definition, caucuses are not elections. The best-known example takes place in the state of Iowa, which is typically the first event of the US presidential campaign. In Iowa, the parties organise separate caucuses in each precinct (a geographic area whose residents vote at the same polling station). The rules of the parties differ somewhat: Iowa Republicans cast their votes on paper ballots, whereas Iowa Democrats must publicly declare their support for a candidate. Only party members may participate, but both parties allow new members to join at the caucus itself. The precinct caucuses select delegates to the county conventions and are the first step in a multistage process. County conventions choose delegates to district conventions, which choose delegates to the state convention, which in turn selects the delegates that will go to the national party convention.
Caucuses typically have low turnout. They favour candidates with strong grassroots campaigns who can identify and motivate potential supporters to participate. In both parties, activists identified with specific interests often have an influential role, such as labour unions for the Democrats and evangelical Christians for Republicans.
A strong performance in the Iowa caucuses can give a candidate momentum going into other states, but it can be a poor predictor of the party's ultimate nominee. Ronald Reagan (1980), George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis (1988), Bill Clinton (1992), John McCain (2008), and Mitt Romney (2012) all lost the Iowa caucuses but went on to win their parties’ presidential nominations.
In contrast to caucuses, primaries are elections organised by the electoral authorities and not the parties themselves.
US electoral laws are largely determined by the states. Unlike voters in most European countries, US voters are not automatically entered into the electoral rolls but must proactively register to vote. In many states, such as California, voters have the option to register as a supporter of a political party. In others, such as Virginia, voters do not have that option and instead must verbally identify a political preference (Democratic, Republican, Independent, etc.) to election officials to vote in the primary.
Primary rules are typically guided by the state political parties. Some primaries are ‘open’, meaning that any eligible voter may cast a ballot, regardless of affiliation. In other states, primaries are ‘closed’, meaning only voters who have declared an allegiance to one of the parties may cast a ballot in the primary for that party's candidates. (However, in some states, a voter can change his or her party affiliation at any time, including at the polling place.) And still others are ‘semi-closed’, allowing their own party members and unaffiliated voters to participate (but not voters who are affiliated with other parties). There are typically separate ballots for each party, meaning that voters must identify their partisan affiliation to election workers, either by indicating a party preference on their voter registration or by verbally requesting a Republican or Democratic ballot.
Bear in mind that a large number of positions are elected and not appointed in the US. Although not all offices are elected in the same election cycle, primary elections may be held for many offices besides the presidency. For example, a voter in Dallas, Texas in 2010–-a non-presidential election year–-could cast a ballot for federal officials (one of the state's two senators and for a member of the House of Representatives), state officials (governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, comptroller of public accounts, commissioner of the general land office, commissioner of agriculture, railroad commissioner, a state senator and a member of the state House of Representatives), judicial officials (Texas, like many states, elects members of the state supreme court and of lower courts such as the court of criminal appeals, the court of appeals, and district- and county-level courts), law enforcement officials (justice of the peace, constable), as well as in various referendums. In other election cycles, voters would also be choosing county, city and school board officials.
In many states, all these offices are partisan, and thus, potentially, the parties will choose their nominees in primary elections. In other states, some offices are non-partisan, especially at the lowest levels of government.
At the presidential level, primaries are typically indirect elections. In some states, the primary is non-binding and sometimes nicknamed a ‘beauty contest’. Delegates to the national parties’ conventions are actually selected by caucuses, but holding a primary draws attention from the candidates and media. In other states, a vote for a candidate is actually a vote for delegates to the party's national convention who support that candidate. But even if primaries are technically an indirect means of choosing a candidate, they allow voters an opportunity to express their preferences.
Primary calendar
Over the course of the past few decades, the US nominating process has become more complicated and lengthy. As states have shifted from closed processes such as caucuses to more open primaries, the electoral calendar has become crowded. Individual states seek to gain attention from the candidates and the media by holding their primaries earlier in the calendar. Over the last several election cycles, the major parties have agreed on four states whose events go first: the Iowa caucuses, the New Hampshire primary, the Nevada caucuses, and the South Carolina primary. In 2012, these events were held in January. Other states have attempted to jump the queue; in 2008 and 2012, for example, Florida held primaries earlier than permitted by the parties. For breaking the rules, Florida was penalised by having its number of delegates reduced at the national conventions. In 2008, under the rules established by the parties, the earliest date other states (except Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) could hold primaries was 5 February. Twenty-three states and territories held primaries or caucuses on that date, creating what is known as Super Tuesday. Senator John McCain of Arizona was the effective Republican nominee by 4 March, all of his major challengers having suspended their campaigns. Democrats, however, saw a rare protracted process that lasted until early June, as Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battled through the primary calendar.
In 2012, whereas President Obama faced no credible challengers to his nomination as the Democratic candidate, Republicans had a large field of potential candidates. And, as in 2008, states jockeyed for an early date in the primary calendar. Iowa held its caucuses on 3 January, and New Hampshire held its first-in-the-nation primary on 10 January. By comparison, in 1988, New Hampshire held its primary on 16 February. This trend has meant that the US presidential campaign essentially begins two years before the presidential election. For example, for the November 2012 elections, Republican candidates began campaigning in late 2010.
The media contribute to the ever-longer–-or indeed permanent–-campaign. Driven by round-the-clock coverage and 24-hour news cycles, the major cable networks have a constant focus on elections. The first debate of the 2012 Republican campaign was organised by Fox News Channel in May 2011, 19 months before the general election. This lengthy process forces candidates to raise ever-larger amounts of money to sustain their campaign operations.
In 2012, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, who ran a strong campaign against John McCain in 2008, became the early frontrunner. Romney's strengths included a successful record in business and politics, a strong network of supporters and broad financial support. Many Republicans, however, were wary of Romney, believing him insufficiently conservative to lead the party. A number of challengers, such as former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, attempted to position themselves as the ‘conservative alternative’ to Romney, but no single candidate emerged as the standard bearer of the right. Romney won three of the five early contests–-New Hampshire, Florida and Nevada–-while Santorum won a narrow victory in Iowa and Gingrich won the South Carolina primary. Over the course of February and March, Santorum won a number of primaries but lacked the financial resources for a sustained battle with Romney. By the end of April, Mitt Romney had won enough delegates to secure the Republican nomination.
There have been numerous proposals to change the primary calendar. Some have argued for a single, national primary; others favour a series of regional primaries and some have advocated for a series of four or five primary dates, the states selected by lot or in rotation. But because the state parties effectively control the process, there has been no consensus or real progress towards reform.
Pros and cons
What are some of the benefits and drawbacks of US-style primaries?
Testing candidates
One of the most valuable aspects of the admittedly drawn-out US nomination process is that it tests the abilities of candidates prior to the actual campaign. By campaigning against rivals within their own parties, US presidential candidates have the opportunity to improve their skills. Particularly in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, candidates rise or fall based on their organisational skills. To succeed, campaigns must build strong organisational structures and demonstrate that they can identify and retain supporters. Frequent debates force candidates to think through their positions on issues, hone their communications skills and learn to connect with potential voters on the issues that matter to them. Although Barack Obama undoubtedly would have preferred to sew up the 2008 Democratic nomination earlier, his long and heated campaign with Hillary Clinton made him a stronger and more confident candidate in the general election. He was forced to develop a stronger campaign organisation and compelled to raise vast sums of money, and he had the opportunity to fine-tune his campaign messages and themes. A similar effect could be seen in the 2000 Republican campaign, when a strong challenge by Senator John McCain helped then-Governor George W. Bush become a stronger candidate for the general election against then-Vice-President Al Gore.
Primaries also offer an opportunity for lesser-known candidates to demonstrate their viability. One well-known example of this occurred in 1976, when nearly unknown Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter won the Iowa caucuses thanks to grassroots organisational work, launching him ahead of better-known candidates and setting him on a path to win the Democratic Party's nomination and the presidency.
Media attention
For political parties–-especially for a party in opposition–-the primary campaigns offer a ready-made opportunity to capture the media's attention and transmit the party's message to the electorate. The party holding the White House, especially when a president is seeking a second term, has an enormous advantage in communications. Anything a president says or does will be covered by the national media. For the opposition party, the nomination campaign provides a daily opportunity to tell its side of the story, especially when there is a strong and exciting contest. Day-to-day campaigning and events such as debates allow the opposition to articulate its positions and policies and, equally importantly, draw attention to the failures and shortcomings of the other party's candidate. In contrast to the carefully controlled and disciplined message typically coming from the White House (no matter the party in power), the conflict, noise and excitement of a heated primary campaign make an irresistible story for journalists.
National appeal
To win a party's nomination, candidates must demonstrate that they can appeal to a broad spectrum of voters, just as they must do in the national elections. Candidates with regional or limited demographic appeal rarely go far in their party's nomination process. Although often criticised for having disproportionate influence, the four early states provide an opportunity for candidates to demonstrate their electability in the Midwest (Iowa), Northeast (New Hampshire), West (Nevada) and South (South Carolina). For candidates to succeed in the national election, it is critical that they demonstrate their ability to connect with voters in the larger states as well; primaries in big, electorally competitive states such as Ohio and Florida offer candidates that opportunity.
Grassroots appeal
In addition to candidates demonstrating that they are competitive across the country, US primaries force them to demonstrate that they have grassroots appeal. Although US campaigns are expensive and largely conducted in the media, the nature of primaries (and caucuses) means that candidates must engage in one-on-one contact with individual voters if they want to succeed. Especially in the early states of Iowa and New Hampshire, voters expect to be able to meet candidates in the flesh. Because the number of voters is relatively small, candidates are targeting a relatively narrow group of individuals (from their party, likely voters, those influential among their friends and peers, etc.). In a nation of over 300 million people, no candidate could conceivably shake hands with more than a fraction of the electorate. But voters in the early primary states serve as a sort of a proxy for the nation as a whole, offering an opportunity for voters to get to know the candidates better.
Strengthening parties
Although primary campaigns can sometimes become bitter, on balance they are a net positive for political parties. The nomination campaigns build excitement and enthusiasm and help parties attract new supporters and contributors. Individual candidates often have a greater ability to bring new activists and contributors into the political process than do the parties themselves. Barack Obama's 2008 campaign, for example, helped attract large numbers of new activists and supporters to the Democratic Party, particularly among youth and African-Americans. Even unsuccessful candidates can help swell party ranks: former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee in 2008 and former Senator Rick Santorum in 2012 each attracted a strong following among evangelical Christians in their Republican campaigns. Likewise, Senator Hillary Clinton's 2008 Democratic campaign energised and attracted support among women. Almost always, the internal divisions within the party are reconciled at the end of the primary campaign. Party conventions help bring the factions back together, and the defeated candidates are expected to and typically do support the party's nominee.
The most obvious exception to this phenomenon can be seen when an incumbent president faces a strong primary opponent in his bid for a second term. A strong challenger to an incumbent president often has devastating consequences. Confronted by viable opponents within his party, including Senator Robert Kennedy, President Lyndon B. Johnson abandoned his 1968 reelection campaign. Former California Governor Ronald Reagan's strong challenge to President Gerald Ford contributed to the president's defeat in 1976. The challenge of Senator Ted Kennedy to President Carter in 1980 and that of conservative commentator Pat Buchanan to President George H. W. Bush in 1992 aggravated tensions within their parties and likely contributed to both presidents losing their bids for a second term.
Giving stakeholders a voice
Primary elections offer a constructive way for key interest groups to play a meaningful role in the candidate selection process. Both major US parties have large numbers of special interests, whether loosely or highly organised, that are important constituencies. For example, labour unions form an important part of the Democratic Party's base. Union activists are highly active in the Democratic Party's primaries, and their support is sought by the party's candidates. Similarly, conservative groups supporting traditional family values play an equivalent role in the Republican Party's primary process. The ability of these groups to influence–-but not dominate–-the process helps to reinforce the groups’ support for the respective parties in the general election campaign. Even if a group's preferred candidate is not the ultimate winner of the party's nomination, the process of consultation and inclusion means that the group is more likely to support the party's candidate in the end.
Money matters
US campaigns are notoriously expensive for several reasons. Although there is limited government funding for presidential candidates, other campaigns are funded solely by private contributions. And in the case of government funding, presidential candidates are not obliged to accept it. In 2008, Barack Obama declined to take the government funds that were available to him, because acceptance of government funding limits the overall amount of money that can be spent and raised. Obama's campaign raised over $800 million, in addition to funds that were raised by the Democratic Party and state party organisations. In 2012, both Obama and Romney declined government funds, relying instead on contributions. Combining expenditures of the campaign committees, the national parties and outside groups, each side spent over $1 billion. Although the Internet has dramatically changed how campaigns raise money, candidates still must devote an enormous amount of time to fundraising. In contrast to candidates in most of Europe, US candidates must purchase time for campaign advertisements from commercial broadcasters. And the nature and length of the primary process compels successful candidates to raise and spend extremely large sums of money over a two-year period prior to the election.
The cost of campaigns means that, in the United States, candidates who are independently wealthy or who have a strong network of financial supporters (such as governors or senators who have run state-wide elections) enjoy a distinct advantage. This means that lesser-known candidates often struggle to be noticed in the primary process. These candidates can and do break through; Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were little known when they began their campaigns for their party's nomination. But, particularly among Republicans, well-known and well-funded candidates often have an advantage.
A model for Europe?
As Europe contemplates ways to increase citizen participation in EU-level politics, can US-style primaries offer a model?
Primaries could be a useful tool for European political parties. They can help address the desires to build a stronger European consciousness, drive the development of EU-level political parties and chip away at the notion that the EU lacks democratic legitimacy.
Few would argue that the EU–-or any other entity–-should adopt the US election system. American campaigns are long, expensive and often focused on marginal issues. The incessant spotlight on politics by the media rarely contributes to an enlightened debate on the issues facing the country, and the media's desire for drama and conflict has probably led to increased polarisation in politics and the electorate. Proposals to reform the primary process have had little traction, though, because primaries do make an important contribution to the process.
European parties have an opportunity to take elements of the US primary system and blend them with European political traditions and practices. Positive features of the US primaries such as building enthusiasm for the party and its candidates, forcing candidates to compete for their party's support, and creating frequent opportunities for voters and the media to learn more about the candidates and party would all be beneficial to fostering a greater European identity. But Europeans should also seek to preserve elements of their own political dynamic that are often lacking in the United States: a reduced emphasis on money in politics, shorter campaigns, and a greater sense of solidarity and shared values across the electorate.
If European parties wanted to design and use primaries to select a candidate for European Commission president, those primaries would have to differ significantly from those in the US system, for example, by limiting the duration of the campaign to a period of several months at most. To ensure that the smaller Member States have a role and to afford greater opportunities for a diverse group of candidates, Europe would do well to follow the US example by beginning the primary process in some of the smaller Member States. The sequence of primaries need not be set in stone, however, and Europe could design a system that rotates the sequence in each election cycle. But smaller countries should begin the process and be grouped together. If Malta and France were to hold a primary on the same day, for example, it is safe to say that France would get much more attention from the candidates and media than would Malta.
The national parties would have to have significant ownership of the primary process. One of the strengths of the US system is that it enhances the role of the state parties. Candidates need and seek the support of state party leaders because of the influence they can bring to bear on their states’ voters. Similarly, a European primary process that enhances the role of the national parties will be more successful and have greater legitimacy. This would pose a particular challenge, however, when one looks at the question of the United Kingdom and the European People's Party (EPP). Clearly, the EPP would not want to ignore the UK, but the lack of an EPP member party in Britain would obviously pose some unique problems. It would also be more complicated in the numerous countries that have several EPP parties, such as Italy, Slovakia or Sweden. But ultimately, if the national parties are engaged and have a stake in the primary process, that process will be more successful in the end. National party involvement in primaries can also help to reinforce the links between the EPP and its member parties.
By the same token, it probably makes sense to group primaries on a limited number of days, perhaps five or six. Past campaigns for the European Parliament have generally had more to do with national political debates than with Europe or European issues. Many voters cast their ballots in European elections for reasons that have more to do with their thoughts on their national government of the day than on what policies make more sense in Brussels. Primaries should offer a chance for state (in the US context) or national (in the European context) issues to be discussed. But European parties are also going to want to ensure that European issues are part of the debate, to help build a European political consciousness and help voters feel they have a real stake in the actions of the EU. Grouping primaries should help to keep at least part of the focus on European issues.
Candidate debates and forums are one of the most valuable elements of the US primary process, and European primaries should also feature them. Whether sponsored by the party or the media, debates provide an important opportunity for candidates to become better known, raise issues and concerns, and demonstrate their knowledge, experience and suitability for the position. More importantly, they give voters a chance to learn about the candidates and influence the process. There are many criticisms of US candidate debates: they start too early, focus on marginal issues and are more joint press conferences than actual debates. But Europe can adapt debates to improve them and make them more relevant to the process. By relying on the media to organise debates and candidate forums, the party would not be forced to foot the bill. Moreover, because broadcasters have an interest in attracting viewers, they will promote the event and thus attract more attention to the campaign and candidates.
European parties will also have to decide how open the process should be. A primary process that is limited to party members has its advantages but is also problematic. Although a closed primary more accurately reflects the will of the party, low levels of party membership mean that relatively few potential voters will cast ballots, because most voters are not party members and thus are effectively disenfranchised. An open primary process, in which any eligible voter can cast a ballot, also poses some risks. In theory, voters who are not sympathetic to the party could attempt to swing the ballot towards a more extreme candidate or one who is perceived as less likely to win. In practice, however, this is rather unlikely. The difficulty of organising large enough numbers of activists to actually influence the outcome would be great. From time to time, these fears surface in US primary contests, but there are few if any genuine examples of success. In 2008, independent voters likely contributed to John McCain's victory in the New Hampshire primary, and Republican and independent voters played a role in Hillary Clinton's win in Indiana. But in both cases, these candidates also had strong backing from within their own parties.
The experience of one EU Member State may be instructive. As the 1996 presidential elections approached, centre-right forces in Bulgaria were deeply split. Despite deep dissatisfaction with the ruling socialist government, the lack of unity in the centre-right offered an opportunity for the left to capture the presidency as well. Incumbent centre-right President Zhelyu Zhelev and challenger Petar Stoyanov agreed to compete in a privately organised primary election to select the centre-right's candidate. A broad coalition of parties, nongovernmental organisations and the candidates themselves drew up and agreed to the rules. After much debate, the organisers decided that the primary would be open to any eligible Bulgarian voter. Having no experience of primaries, no one knew whether voters would turn out or whether opposition voters would somehow ‘poison’ the process. In fact, turnout was strong, and the primary ran smoothly. As a condition for voting, voters had to present identification at the polling place. Although today's EU personal data protection laws might prevent this, in 1996, the Bulgarian centre-right used the primary to collect and build an impressive database of sympathetic voters. More importantly, however, Petar Stoyanov's victory in the primaries was accepted by President Zhelev, and the centre-right was united and victorious in the general election campaign.
The EPP and other European-level parties could also consider the concept of super-delegates. Both US parties allocate a percentage of nominating votes (or delegates) to party officials and dignitaries. For example, under the rules of the US Republican Party, all state party chairs and members of the Republican National Committee (each state or territory has two committee members, and they form the governing body of the party) are automatically named as delegates for the party's nominating convention. The Democratic Party has a far more extensive list, so Democratic senators, members of congress, governors and former senior office holders are automatic delegates in the party's nominating convention. European parties, such as the EPP, could consider such a mechanism, giving key EPP officials and elected officials an automatic vote in the nominating process. Such a step, although not outweighing the preference of European voters, would help ensure that senior party officials have an important role in the process.
Conclusion
Although far from perfect, primary elections in the US have helped to open up what was once a secretive process to broad, national participation. In so doing, state parties and the national parties have been strengthened by greater citizen involvement. Candidates are vetted and have the opportunity to strengthen their skills before facing their opponents in the general election. The primary process allows interest groups and constituencies to influence the outcome, helping to lock in their support for the party. The primaries also provide an opportunity for a political party to share its ideas and plans with the electorate, a particularly important opportunity for a party in opposition.
In devising a system for candidate selection, Europeans should take note of the advantages and disadvantages of the US model, including the benefit of broader participation as well as the unnecessary length and expense of the American process. Europe should retain some of the best aspects of its politics: short, focused campaigns with relatively modest budgets. But opening up the candidate selection process could be a positive step, helping to build the identities of European-level parties, strengthening the ties between the national parties and the European parties, building interest and awareness in European politics, and helping to develop a stronger European polity while enhancing the democratic legitimacy of the EU itself.
Footnotes